Talk:Praxis (alternate reality)
Star Trek Into Darkness Do we need a separate Praxis article for Star Trek Into Darkness? It's shown as destroyed / over-mined in the alternate reality version when the away team approach Qo'noS in "Mudd's ship". Or does it just get a mention here? Or is it speculation since it actually isn't named in the script / dialogue (but is strongly inferred as parts of Qo'noS are no longer inhabitable / abandoned)? --usscantabrian (talk) 21:45, May 10, 2013 (UTC) :I'd say a single article is enough in this case, for all the reasons mentioned and additionally because we don't know whether Praxis looked different or the same in "prime 2259". -- Cid Highwind (talk) 21:51, May 10, 2013 (UTC) ::Okay, so it probably just warrants a mention on this article on how it appeared, not any speculation, right? Something like, "In , a moon orbiting appeared partially-destroyed. As it was stated in dialogue that parts of Qo'noS were no longer inhabitable and were abandoned, the destroyed moon could be Praxis." --usscantabrian (talk) 22:04, May 10, 2013 (UTC) :After rereading the article (sorry, should have done that before my first reply), I have to change my opinion somewhat. It seems as if our Praxis article deliberately does not claim that Praxis is a moon orbiting Kronos. So, unless something like this has been stated in the movie, we shouldn't start making the connection now. Instead, an article like Kronos moon should be created with info from STID, containing a background note mentioning the moons similarity to Praxis. I hope this makes sense. :) --Cid Highwind (talk) 22:24, May 10, 2013 (UTC) :::I feel a reasonable theory to the speculation surrounding the partially obliterated moon orbiting Qo'noS can be surmised with existing facts we know from the two alternate reality films. Allow me to elaborate. :::We know (through interviews with J.J. Abrams) there was a deleted scene that explained Klingons had captured and imprisoned the crew of the Narada at the infamous prison camp Rura Penthe after the USS Kelvin crippled and stranded the Romulan mining vessel in the opening events of . 25 years later, the surviving crew escaped and liberated their vessel to return to the position where they would find Spock and exact their revenge. We also know that intercepted a Klingon Subspace communication that described 47 Klingon Warbirds - an entire fleet - were destroyed after the Narada's crew regained control of their ship. Finally, the final exploits of the "Narada" included terrors like destruction of the entire planetVulcan and the near complete decimation of a rescue operation from the Federation. These and other events led to a more defensive and militaristic posturing and policy from many civilizations across the galaxy. The Klingons were certainly no exception. :::I postulate that the implementation of reverse-engineered Romulan tech, the logistics of replacing 47 destroyed warbirds, and the general upswing in militaristic saber-rattling around the galaxy can only lead to more aggressive military and political policies on Qo'noS, and a heavier and more strenuous mining activity. This would have plausibly led to Praxis' early demise. Remember, its destruction was going to happen anyway in another few decades in the best of circumstances. This extra load on the moon with the alternate reality surely accelerated its demise. :::With no Chancellor Gorkon stepping up to offer peace, Klingon leadership have little predictable path to go other than to conquer its way to a new homeworld. Do I smell a potential plot to Star Trek 13?! :::Mwhays (talk) 08:24, June 2, 2013 (UTC) ::::That's certainly possible, but such speculation cannot be in the article. 31dot (talk) 08:43, June 2, 2013 (UTC) Sector Can someone walk me through what the opening paragraph and its associated note are supposed to prove about the sector? Which of the stated references places Praxis in sector 70? Why is STID mentioned there if Praxis doesn't make a (confirmed canon) appearance? Was sector 70 ever mentioned outside of STID, and if not, what is the relevance to this article? And how does it follow that Praxis was there? Where was Praxis in "Sins of the Father" ? What has the high command to do with all of that? - My point being, that whole paragraph reads like a jumble of random facts, connections, and episode titles, I can't make heads or tails of it. -- Capricorn (talk) 21:50, September 19, 2013 (UTC) Praxis in Alternate Reality I have great question about placing in the destroyed moon seen in the alternate reality in this article are being Praxis. Firstly take into account how this is currently written. : "In the alternate reality, Praxis may be the satellite of Qo'noS that was destroyed by an unknown catastrophic event prior to 2259 and left severely fragmented as a result." It "Maybe" Praxis the satellite moon? There should be no maybes. Obviously for one a planet can have many Moons. Secondly, as mentioned in the article, it is left up for interpretation by the producers to whether or not it is Praxis. There are two possiblty on what to do with this. One is to give it its own page with a background note on Praxis speculation. Or secondly add it to the Kronos page and give it a similar background note. --BorgKnight (talk) 17:58, January 28, 2014 (UTC) :It was mentioned in the computer graphic in the film as the only moon of Qo'noS: "MOON(S): PRAXIS DESTROYED" --Pseudohuman (talk) 18:34, January 28, 2014 (UTC) Seeing that now. Thanks for the clarification. Guess that was what solved the issue of whether it was Qo'noS moon as well. Do you think there should be a mentioned in the section about it in the AR such as "(Star Trek Into Darkness, display graphic)" ? --BorgKnight (talk) 18:41, January 28, 2014 (UTC) ::Do we have an image of that graphic? Roberto Orci states in this article that the moon was "not specified as Paraxis sic. But could be". Kurtzman stated "It certainly was inspired by Praxis, however, it's not specified, so we're leaving it open as to exactly what that moon was." Clearly the intent of the writers was to leave it ambiguous. 31dot (talk) 01:56, January 29, 2014 (UTC) :In the linked video. Apparently Jorge Almeida put it in the graphics anyways during post-production, and wasn't aware of the fact that during pre-production the writes wanted it to be kept ambiguous. It's seen (45:31 mins into the movie) the text is illegible on bluray quality, the text "MOON(S): PRAXIS is completely unobscured and in focus on screen though, so in the theatres it was legible, as film is much more higher quality that bluray. --[[User:Pseudohuman|Pseudohuman] (talk) 02:21, January 29, 2014 (UTC) ::I'd feel a lot better if we had a clearer image of it, even just from background information(which would still be acceptable as long as the image appeared) but I see no reason to remove it. I would say that if a future film clearly establishes that it isn't Praxis(possibly because the writers were not aware of the content of the graphics) then that would override this image per policy.31dot (talk) 02:53, January 29, 2014 (UTC) I agree with Pseudohuman. Having seen the video myself that includes the graphic I can see the text "MOON(S): PRAXIS I would recommend a screenshot maybe of it to be taken and placed on the Praxis page. I agree as well with 31dot that the section should remain until it is possibly contradicted in a future film. --[[User:BorgKnight|BorgKnight] (talk) 03:02, January 29, 2014 (UTC) Page split? How about splitting this page, creating an article about the alternate reality version of Praxis? A precedent we have for this is Vulcan (planet) and Vulcan (alternate reality). I suspect it might help to clarify which version of Praxis is being discussed. There also seems to be quite a bit of information about the alternate reality version of Praxis, enough to warrant a separate article, at least imho. -- Defiant (talk) 13:45, January 1, 2016 (UTC) :I support this suggestion. Tom (talk) 16:25, January 1, 2016 (UTC) ::I support this as well. Compvox (talk) 02:01, January 3, 2016 (UTC) ::: I fourth the motion. --LauraCC (talk) 20:21, January 26, 2016 (UTC) :::: I support a split of Praxis, pardon the pun... --| TrekFan Open a channel 22:50, February 13, 2016 (UTC) ::::: Makes sense to me. 31dot (talk) 02:57, February 14, 2016 (UTC) ::::::Support. - 04:01, February 14, 2016 (UTC)